The DCIT, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam v. M/s GMR Beverages & Inds Ltd., Srikakulam

ITA 178/VIZ/2005 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 17825314 RSA 2005
Assessee PAN AABCG4480G
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number ITA 178/VIZ/2005
Duration Of Justice 5 year(s) 9 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant The DCIT, Circle-4(1), Visakhapatnam
Respondent M/s GMR Beverages & Inds Ltd., Srikakulam
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 20-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 20-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 15-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 15-12-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 30-03-2005
Judgment Text
ITA 178 OF 2005 GMR BEVERAGES &INDS. LTD. VSKP IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 178 /VIZAG/ 20 05 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001 - 02 DCIT CIRCLE - 4(1) V ISAKHAPATNAM M/S. UNITED MILLENNIUM BREWERIES LTD ( FORMERLY M/S. GMR BEVERAGES & INDUSTRIES LTD . ) VISAKHAPATNAM (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AABCG 4480G APPELLANT BY: SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI Y.A. RAO CA ORDER PE R SHRI S.K. YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER : - THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON VARIOUS GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 1) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN BOTH FACTS AND LAW OF THE CASE. 2) THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AS PER THE DETAILED REASONING GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3) THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ACTUAL COST OF THE ASSET AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.43 EXPLANATION 7A AND 7 TO SUB - SEC TION (1) ON TRANSFER OF ASSET IN A SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION OR DEMERGER. 4) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTUAL COST OF ASSET HAS TO BE ADOPTED AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AFTER ALLOWING DEPRECIATION AS PER THE COMPANIES ACT. 5) THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CO NFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.1 29 650/ - RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH IS NOT TAXABLE UNDER THE IT ACT 1961. 6) ANY OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. THOUGH VARIOUS GROUNDS ARE RAISED YET TWO MAIN ISSUES EME RGE OUT OF THOSE GROUNDS. THE FIRST GROUND RELATE TO THE WDV OF THE ASSETS OF THE MERGED COMPANY BY VIRTUE OF THE DE - MERGER FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPRECIATION . THE FACTS BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD IN THIS REGARD ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW A WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE ASSETS AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF GMR TECHNOLOG IES AND THE ITA 178 OF 2005 GMR BEVERAGES &INDS. LTD. VSKP 2 WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE ASSETS AS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF GMR BEVERAGES . ON EXAMINATION IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O. THAT THE AS SETS HAVE BEEN REVALUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING HIGHER DEPRECIATION. ON BEING QUESTIONED THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THAT NO REVALUATION HAS BEEN DONE BY AN EXPERT OR A COMPETENT VALUER BUT THE REVALUATION HAS BEEN DONE MERELY BY THE ACCOUNTANTS B ASED UPON THEIR GENERAL OPINION OF THE REVALUATION. THE A.O. HAS ALSO NOTED THAT TOTAL COST OF TRANSFER HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED BUT THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE VARIOUS BLOCK OF ASSETS HAS BEEN CHANGED AS PER THE ANNEXURE - A. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY INVOKED TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43 AND FOLLOWING THE EXPLANATION 7 A AND 7 TO SUB - SECTION ( 1 ) ACCORDING TO WHICH ON TRANSFER OF ASSET IN A SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION OR DE - MERGER THE CAPITAL ASSETS TRANSFERRED SHALL HAVE THE SAME VALUE AS IF THE CAPITAL ASSET S CONTIN UED TO BE HELD BY THE TRANSFEROR T HE A.O. PROPOSED TO DISALLOW THE REVALUATION OF THE ASSETS AND ADOPT THE WDV AS SHOWN IN THE HANDS OF THE TRANSFEROR FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUANTIFYING THE DEPRECIATION. WHILE DOING SO HE HAS PLACED A RELIANCE UPON THE JUDG EMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NAGAM MAI COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT 258 ITR 390. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE EXPLANATION 2 B OF SUB - SECTION ( 6 ) OF SECTION 43 B OF THE I.T. ACT HAS HELD THAT THE A CTUAL COST OF THE ASSETS HAS TO BE ADOPTED AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AFTER ALLOWING DEPRECIATION AS PER THE COMPANIES ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE A.O. TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION AS PER ASSESSEES CLAIM. 3. NOW THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 7 A BELOW SUB - SECTION ( 1 ) OF SECTION 43 T HE ACTUAL COST OF THE TRANSFERRED CAPITAL ASSET TO THE RESULTING COMPANY SHALL BE TAKEN TO BE THE SAME AS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF THE DE - MERGED COMPANY HAD CONTINUED TO HOLD THE CAPITAL ASSET FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITS OWN BUSINESS. INITIALLY IT HAS BEEN LAID DOWN THAT THE COST OF CAPITAL ASSET TO BE DIFFERENT IN THE HANDS OF THE DE - MERGED COMPANY BEFORE DE - MERGER AND IN THE HANDS OF THE RESULTING C OMPANY AFTER A DE - MERGER. HE HAS ALSO PLACED A RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF G ODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD. ITA 178 OF 2005 GMR BEVERAGES &INDS. LTD. VSKP 3 VS. ACIT 124 TTJ 499 IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN CASE OF THE DE - MERGER ONLY THE TAX W DV OF THE TRANSFERRED ASSET OF THE DE - MERGED COMPANY SHALL CONSTITUTE THE BLOCK OF ASSETS OF THE RESULTING COMPANY AND NOT THE BOOK VALUE. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND HAS PLACED A HEAVY RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE HAS ALSO RAISED A NEW ARGUMENT THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF DE - MERGER AS THE REQUISITE PERCENTAGE OF SHARES WERE NOT ALLOTTED BY THE RESULTING COMPANY IN FAVOUR OF THE DE - MERGED COMPANY. IT IS A CASE OF THE SALE OF THE ASSETS THEREFORE THE REVALUATION OF THE ASSETS IS POSSIBLE. 5. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF R ECORD WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED THIS ARGUMENT OF DIRECT SALE OF THE ASSETS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HE IS TRYING TO PUT FORTH ALTOGETHER A NEW ARGUMENT BEFORE US WHICH CANNOT BE ADMITT ED AS IT REQUIRES AN INQUIRY AND VERIFICATION OF CERTAIN FACTS. THEREFORE THIS NEW ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS A CASE OF A SALE OF CAPITAL ASSET CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED AT THIS SECOND APPELLATE STAGE. WE THEREFORE CONFINE OURSELVES WITH THE MAIN I SSUE AS TO WHAT WOULD BE THE W DV OF THE CAPITAL ASSETS TRANSFERRED BY THE DE - MERGED COMPANY TO RESULTING COMPANY. IN THIS REGARD WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD. (SU PRA) . THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 7 A IS ALSO ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE W DV OF THE ASSETS SHOULD REMAIN THE SAME ON MERGER IN THE HANDS OF THE RESULTING COMPANY. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY INTERPRETED THE PROVISIONS AND WE SET ASIDE HIS ORDER AND RESTORE THAT OF THE A.O. 6. THE SECOND GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND IN THIS REGARD ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REDUCED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY THE REASON ABLE EXPENDITURES. NOTHING IS PLACED ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY ITA 178 OF 2005 GMR BEVERAGES &INDS. LTD. VSKP 4 THE ASSESSEE IS N E T INCOME CALCULATED AFTER REDUCING THE EXPENDITURES INCURRED ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. EVEN THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS . I N THE ABSENCE OF ALL THESE MATERIAL W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT A.O. HAS RIGHTLY REDUCED THE EXPENDITURES FROM THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS OUTRIGHTLY CHALLENGED THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE A PP EAL OF THE REVENUE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AT LOSS. THEREFORE EVEN AFTER THESE ADDITIONS THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY TAX EFFECT. SINCE NO TAX EFFECT IS INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS THESE APPEALS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE I N THE L IGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JCIT VS. PEERLESS DEVELOPERS LIMITED 103 ITD 349. 8. THE LD. D.R. OBJECTED TO THE LEGAL PROPOSITION PROPOUNDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES. THE LD. D.R. HOWEVER CONTENDED THAT LIMIT OF TAX EFFECT IS TO BE EXAMINED WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES/GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL AND NOT THE NET EFFECT AFTER THE RESULT OF THE APPEAL. IF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED THEN IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSED INCOME IS AT LOSS NO APPEAL O F THE REVENUE IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE LIGHT OF THE INSTRUCTIONS THOUGH THE INDIVIDUAL ISSUES OR GROUNDS INVOLVES SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TAX. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. PEERLESS DEVELOPERS LIMITED 103 ITD 349 SPECIAL BENCH. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WE FIND THAT THE SPECIAL BENCH WAS CONSTITUTED TO DECIDE A QUESTION I.E. WHETHER ON THE FACT AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED ANY REAL ESTATE BUSINESS AND FOLLOWING PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD I S JUSTIF IED IN CLAIMING PROJECT EXPENDITURE ON ACCRUAL BASIS IN THE YEAR OF INCURRING WHEN INCOME IS REFLECTED ONLY IN THE YEAR OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT ? BUT LATER ON THE ENTIRE APPEAL WAS REFERRED TO THE SPECIAL BENCH AND THE SPECIAL BENCH INSTEAD OF DECIDING THE MAIN ISSUE ON WHICH SPECIAL BENCH WAS CONSTITUTED HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL ON THE POINT OF ITA 178 OF 2005 GMR BEVERAGES &INDS. LTD. VSKP 5 MAINTAINABILITY ON THE POINT OF TAX EFFEC T BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT. IN THIS ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT NET TAX EFFECT IS TO BE SEEN . IF IT REMAINED NIL OR IN LOSS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS TO BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF NON - MAINTAINABILITY. THE RELEVANT OB SERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA - 13 19 & 20 ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: PARA - 13: WE HAVE GIVEN OUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF TAX AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE SHOR T QUESTION TO BE DECIDED BY US IS WHETHER THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.1979 DT. 27 TH MARCH 2000 WHICH STATES THAT WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IN AN APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.1 LAKH THEN THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD N OT FILE ANY APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE FACTS LEADING TO THIS CASE ARE THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 69 84 089 ON ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD IN RESPECT OF SODEPUR AND BRAHMAPUTRA PROJECTS WHICH ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCLUDED THIS EXPENDITURE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME IN THE ASST. YR. 1997 - 98 WHEN THE SAID PROJECTS WERE COMPLETED AND THE REVENUE FROM PROJECTS WAS RECOGNIZED AS INCOME. THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE FOR THE ASST. YR. 1997 - 98 HAS ADDED THE SUM OF RS.69 84 089 WHILE DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASST. YR. 1997 - 98 BUT IN THE ASST. YR. 1996 - 97 HAS NOT ALLOWED DEDUCTION FOR THE SUM OF RS.69 84 089 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS IF WE UPHOLD THE ADDITI ON IN THE PRESENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY THE REVENUE HAS TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASST. YR. 1997 - 98 OR VICE VERSA THE TAX EFFECT OF THE SAME WOULD BE ZERO. THIS IS SO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE INCOME DETERMINED IN THE ASST. YR. 1996 - 97 IS LOSS OF RS.5 74 69 643 AND THE INCOME DETERMINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 30 TH DECEMBER 2002 IN ITA NOS.1341 AND 1342/CAL/1998 FOR THE ASST. YRS. 1993 - 94 AND 1995 - 96 ORDER DATED 6 TH SEPTEMBER 2004 IN ITA NO.1744/KOL/2003 FOR THE ASST. YR. 1999 - 2000 ORDER DT.10 TH SEPTEMBER 2004 IN ITA NOS. 972 AND 973/KOL/2002 FOR THE ASST. YRS. 1997 - 98 AND 1998 - 99. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AS THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT ANY APPEAL WAS PREFERRED TO THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AGAINST THOSE ORDERS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS THE ISSUE IS ALREADY A DECIDED ISSUE AND COUPLED WIT H THE FACT THAT THE TAX EFFECT ON THE SAME IS NIL AS DEMONSTRATED ABOVE IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE ISSUE EVEN IF INVOLVES A QUESTION OF LAW THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. ITA 178 OF 2005 GMR BEVERAGES &INDS. LTD. VSKP 6 PARA - 19: WE FIND THAT THE CBDT VIDE INSTRUCTION NO.2 /2005 DATED 24 TH OCTOBER 2005 ISSUED GUIDELINES TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WITH REGARD TO FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HIGH COURT AND SUPREME COURT. FROM THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION IT IS EVIDENT THAT SINCE 1987 THE CBDT IS INSTRUCTING ITS OFFICERS NOT TO FILE THE APPEAL WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS BELOW CERTAIN MONETARY LIMITS. VIDE INSTRUCTION NO.1903 DATED 28 TH OCTOBER 1992 THE MONETARY LIMIT WAS REVISED UPWARD AND THE OFFICERS WERE DIRECTED NOT TO FILE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHERE THE TAX EFFECT WAS BELOW RS.25 000. THE ABOVE MONETARY LIMIT WAS FURTHER REVISED UPWARD BY INSTRUCTION NO.1979 DATED 27 TH MARCH 2000 AND THE OFFICERS WERE DIRECTED NOT FILE THE APPEAL TO TRIBUNAL WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS BELOW RS.1 LAC. THEREAFTER IN PARTIAL MO DIFICATION OF THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION THE BOARD VIDE INSTRUCTION NO.2/2005 DATED 24 TH OCTOBER 2005 HAS FURTHER RAISED THE ABOVE MONETARY LIMIT TO RS.2 LAKHS WITH THE SAME DIRECTIONS. THUS THE CBDT SINCE 1987 HAS NOT ONLY TAKEN A CONSISTENT APPROACH OF IN STRUCTING ITS OFFICERS FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS BELOW THE MONETARY LIMIT BUT SUCH MONETARY LIMIT IS ALSO REVISED UPWARD FROM TIME TO TIME. THE CIRCULAR UNDER INSTRUCTION NO.1979 DATED 27 TH MARCH 2000 WAS CONSIDERED BY THE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CAMCO COLOUR CO. (SUPRA) AND THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AT P. 568 AS UNDER: IT APPEARS THAT DESPITE THE ABOVE CIRCULAR THE REVENUE HAS CHOSEN TO FILE THE PRESENT APPEAL KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT THE CORRIDORS OF THE COURTS ARE FLOODE D WITH PENDING LITIGATIONS. THE PRESUMPTION OF THIS APPEAL IS QUITE CONTRARY TO THE INSTRUCTION ISSUED IN THE CIRCULAR WHICH IS BINDING ON THE REVENUE. IN THE ABOVE VIEW OF THE MATTER CONSIDERING THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE CBDT WE ARE SATISFIED THA T THE BOARD HAS TAKEN A POLICY DECISION NOT TO FILE APPEAL IN A TYPE OF CASE IN HAND AND THE SAME IS FINDING ON THE REVENUE (APPELLANT HEREIN). IN THE RESULT WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL ON THIS COUNT IN LIMINE WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. PARA - 20: IN THESE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE PRESENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.1 LAKH. FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTION NO.1979 DATED 27 TH MARCH 2000 THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAIN TAINABLE AND IS REQUIRED TO BE DISMISSED. WE DO SO. 9. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSED INCOME ALSO REMAINED AT LOSS. THEREFORE THE NET TAX EFFECT AFTER THE DISPOSAL OF THIS APPEAL EVEN IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE WOULD REMAIN NIL. A JUDICIAL PROPRIETY DEMANDS THAT VIEW TAKEN BY THE LARGER BENCH SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY THE SMALLER BENCHES. SINCE ITA 178 OF 2005 GMR BEVERAGES &INDS. LTD. VSKP 7 THE SPECIAL BENCH HAS TAKEN A PARTICULAR VIEW WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO FOLLOW THE SAME. WE THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE SPECIAL BENCH HOLD THAT NET TAX EFFECT IN THIS APPEAL REMAINED AT NIL EVEN IF IT IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE THIS APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THE TAX EFFECT IS BELOW THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE CBDT. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.01 .20 1 1 SD/ - SD/ - (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 20 TH JANUARY 20 1 1 COPY TO 1 T HE DCIT CIRCLE - 4(1) VISAKHAPATNAM 2 M/S. UNITED MILLENNIUM BREWERIES LTD. (FORMERLY GMR BEVERAGES AND INDUSTRIES LTD.) BANTUPALLI VILLAGE J.R. PURAM RANASTHALAM SRIKAKULAM. 3 THE CI T VISAKHAPATNAM 4 THE CIT (A) - II VISAKHAPATNAM 5 THE DR ITAT VI SAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM